From: Alex M. <al...@ca...> - 2009-11-07 00:12:07
|
Rich, ok, I understand what needs to be done. I'll get it to take into account the 32/64 situation. It's probably easier for me to do it because I'd have to test it with dependent projects anyway. I'll do it this weekend and we should be good to go after that. Alex On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:33 AM, Rich Mattes <jp...@gm...> wrote: > This is the part I wanted to take a look at again. Based on some of the > lines that were commented out in WritePackageConfig, it looks like at one > point the gearbox-config and gearbox-config-internal were autogenerated > using cmake's configure. That changed in favor of including pre-generated > files in the source tree, and getting rid of the .in files. This is > problematic now, since now the library paths in both files can vary > depending on a 32/64 bit build. If I can find where this changed in the > subversion history, I will try revert it. Otherwise I'll figure it out. > > I overwrote the file in the source directory because cmake was already set > up to install this copy. I see the problem with this now. It looks like > gearbox-config.cmake and gearbox-config-internal.cmake should be replaced > with .in files, and generated at build time like > gearbox-config-version.cmake is. > > Rich > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Geoffrey Biggs [mailto:geo...@ai...] > Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 2:25 AM > To: gea...@li... > Subject: Re: [Gearbox-devel] Packaging for Fedora > > Alex Makarenko wrote: >> one question on your version: >> it looks like your configure_file destination directory is in the >> source brach (not the binary branch): >> >> set( _input_dir ${PROJECT_SOURCE_DIR}/cmake/internal ) >> set( _output_dir ${PROJECT_SOURCE_DIR}/cmake/internal ) >> >> I think it would be better to put it on the binary side so that the >> out-of-source build does not add any files to the source tree. >> what do you think? > > Any generated files should absolutely always go in the binary directory. > CMake is designed with this usage pattern in mind, and I think it's > ideal to keep the source tree clean. With suitable paths set as needed > there's no need to put stuff in the source directory. > >> I'd like to release soon. >> Anything else missing? > > We should rename the cmake files that get installed first, then. Did we > agree on which solution was best? > > Geoff > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day > trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus > on > what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with > Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july > _______________________________________________ > Gearbox-devel mailing list > Gea...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gearbox-devel > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day > trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on > what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with > Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july > _______________________________________________ > Gearbox-devel mailing list > Gea...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gearbox-devel > |